Tavaris Poll
by Anthony Carter on Apr 6, 2009 8:06 AM CDT
104 comments
I've never generated a poll here, but found myself surprised that the majority of people in the recent Jay Cutler aftermath poll believe we're in a better position for not having given up as much as the Broncos were asking. I found myself curious to know what the general census is around Tarvaris. I feel like a lot of strong opinions get expressed about him, but I can't always gauge where people generally stand, whether in support (or not) of him. Limiting the poll to just three choices was a bit artificial. Feel free to add complexity to the choices I've offered with your comments below.
And, I guess I should also add that I've (perhaps wrongly) worded the question as if Tarvaris is our team's quarterback. Of course, we're being told that there is competition at the position this year. But, unless we go after young talent in the draft, I think it's safe to assume that the team is still putting its stock behind Tarvaris' development.
This FanPost was created by a registered user of The Daily Norseman, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the site. However, since this is a community, that view is no less important.
0 recs |
104 comments
Email
Print
Comments
pretty tied right now
My thoughts on this is, there really were no legitiment starters to persue this offseason. lets face it, Warner was never available, after him? Cassel is not as good as some people seem to think, and even if he is better the T-Jack, he is not worth $14M and what we would have to give up for him. and I would not have wanted to pay what the Bears paid for Cutler, I think they will be feeling the negatives of that deal for years to come.
Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?
by the Real Thor on Apr 6, 2009 8:49 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Disagree....
I having been tearing up the Vikings management for not making a move on one of the qbs.
At first, I thought the bears did give up too much. Now I dont. I especially think that if vikings made that same deal, it definately would not have been to much.
The Vikings do not have nearly as many holes as the Bears. The vikes do not have a glaring need…maybe rt. but that can be fixed in the 2nd round of this years draft.
This years 1 and 3 for cutler is a wash. Pro bowler for a #1 and #3 who might not ever pan out plus the amount of money that was saved is definately worth it. Next years #1 might sting a little, but for the vikes, again, there are no glaring holes. If there is one, take the money you saved from not having to spend $100 mill on two #1s and get a high targeted FA.
TJax is trash. He was given two years to prove himself. Sage is definately an upgrade, but you saw how he loses football games with the texans.
by gl12ox05 on Apr 6, 2009 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree & Disagree
First, T-Jack’s problem is consistency. He shows real flashes of brilliance… and then he disappoints. If he can pull his act together, he’ll be a premier QB in the NFL. Personally, I think this upcoming year is it for him to do it, or reach the end of his rope in Purple.
Second… Failing to get Cutler was stupid in the extreme. We’re in some disagreement on that, here at the DN, but my position is that the Vikes should have pulled the trigger on Cutler. We could have bettered the Bears’ offer, and the Vikes are in great position to weather the draft losses in exchange for a franchise QB that’s good for more than a decade of quality play at the hardest position to fill.
And Sage is a great backup, as a minimum. Getting him was a very smart move, at the very least he’s a replacement for Gus. At most… who knows, maybe with the right team he can be much more. If you want to throw away every QB who loses a game, none of them would survive to make out of HS play.
by DCPurple on Apr 6, 2009 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes
I think we mostly agree. Everyone who gets drafted as the physical tools to suceed in this league. I have seen enough of tjax to not be impressed by him at all. The game just seems to be going to fast for him. But hey, if you think this is his “do or die” year, so be it. He has gotten a lot of playing time, with a very limited role, and I just dont see any hint of possible success out of him.
I do think Sage is an upgrade. I also agree that just because he lost a game he shouldnt be judged. But he has been lucky enough to be one of those players who has gotten quite a few chances in this league. He just hasnt beaten anyone out.
Because of childress, the qb role is very limited. right now he just wants a qb who can complete passes and not turn the ball over. Sage may be ok at that. Definately better than Tjax and gus. Cutler, Cassell, or Garcia would have let childress change the qb role….. if thats what he wanted to do.
by gl12ox05 on Apr 6, 2009 12:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jackson really hasn’t had much playing time at all. Just north of a full season’s worth of games. I’m not sure how you weren’t impressed with him at the end of last season at the very least, because he was on fire.
In regards to Rosenfels not beating anyone out, that’s not entirely true. After he went 4-2 in ‘07, he really should have been considered the starter for the Texans. But they didn’t even give him a chance to beat out Schuab, because they had pretty much tied their wagon to the guy. And, actually, Sage is more prone to turning over the ball than Jackson is. Gus was terrible, everyone will tell you that, but Jackson only had 2 interceptions in 5 games. Which isn’t bad by any degree. I’ll give Rosenfels some slack, even though he threw quite a few picks, because he played some tough defenses, but Jackson appears to have the best ball control out of our QBs.
by Frost on Apr 6, 2009 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
full season's worth of games...
in two years. Thats alot for Tjax. I will admit that Tjax looked better in the last few games, but thats because teams didnt know how to play against him. Look at how he played in Philly, yes he played awful, but he regressed to that qb from the year before. yes, philly d was good, but tjax couldnt even complete a pass. he did not even give the offense a shot at putting points on the board.
If you are okay with the ball control qb role that is in Minny, than your right, tjax or sage should be your qb. I am thinking to win a superbowl, you want a qb that can thow at least 20+ td. that way they are taking off some of the pressure for AP to run wild.
Plus, ball control doesnt win superbowls. tenn and balt are ball control teams that won games, but no championships. Ariz and Pitt are teams that have good qbs. Pitt more so because they like to control the clock, but when it comes down to that last 4th qtr drive, ben can put the team on his back, drive down the field, and make that game winning TD pass.
by gl12ox05 on Apr 6, 2009 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In the first half of the Philly game, Jackson was completing plenty of passes. It was during the second half that he started panicing and throwing terribly. I’m not ready to give up on him yet, he may still turn into a good QB.
If Jackson were ever in for a whole season, I bet he could get 20+ TDs though. He had 9 in 5 games, so on that trajectory, in a season he’d have about 27. Now that’s more than likely higher than it actually would be, but I could definitely see him getting 20 TDs. It’s not the TDs that’ll get defenses off Peterson though. They need completions for big yards. I’m hoping either Rosenfels or Jackson can provide that.
by Frost on Apr 6, 2009 3:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree to disagree...
You get to live with Tjax. I am only a 3rd party fan who thinks Minny is wasting their time.
There is no way he throws 20+ tds. He may get off to a good start, but as soon as teams get tape on him, he will do exactly what he did in that philly game. In order to get to 20+ tds, he’d have to complete some big plays. Sage has a better chance of keeping teams honest, and being a game manager, but he does tend to throw bad picks. At least he will get you some 1st downs through the air.
You cant deny that had you gotten cutler, your team is a super bowl favorite today. Giving up what the bears did would not have hurt your team as bad.
Instead, you are in a three way dog fight, just to win your division. you tell me which sounds better?
by gl12ox05 on Apr 6, 2009 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, we’d have been Superbowl favorites. Just like we were last season when we added Jared Allen. The Jags were supposed to be SB contenders too.
But I do think he could get 20 TDs. Teams had tape on him last season. It wasn’t just the Eagles. The blame wasn’t solely on Jackson either. The O-line was getting shredded apart and WRs weren’t breaking away.
But if I had to pick between “clear contention” or a dogfight, I’ll actually take the dogfight. I’m going to love that extra bit of drama it adds to the games.
by Frost on Apr 6, 2009 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
um no....
No way were the vikings legit superbowl favorites last year. Allen is good, but he didnt make you superbowl favorites. The giants, chargers, cowboys, etc were ahead.
Teams have plenty of tape, but I mean the tape they get from how a player is currently succeeding. This happens in sports all the time. A player starts off really well, 4 straight games in fact. Then opposing teams pull out tapes from the last 3 games to get the current tendencies. If Tjax shows that the philly game was a fluke and goes through the whole season like his last 5 games last year, then fine. You guys were right and I was wrong.
Bottom line, your team is built to win now. You have studs everywhere, except qb and coach. yes, you have positions you could upgrade, ie rt, cb, wr, etc but who doesnt? The biggest position of need is qb. And that is a position that is by far the most game changing. Cutler (for example) would give you the option to throw more than 28 times per game. It would make more teams honest and lb and safties would have to blitz less and line up farther away from the line of scrimmage.
Tjax and sage may turn into decent qbs. But they will just be game managers, not that guy who can engineer that 4th qtr drive and throw that superbowl winning td.
by gl12ox05 on Apr 6, 2009 5:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
expect there were people who considered the Vikings superbowl favorites, including Dr. Z of Sports Illustrated.
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on Apr 6, 2009 6:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am sure the league has plenty of film on Jackson, the problem is getting him to play more consistently. Jackson could easily throw for at least 20 TDs. Last year the Vikings threw for 22 TDs, sure it was mostly done on Freotte’s 12 TD in 11 games, but the league has got to have over a decade of film on him and he still managed to get it done. To throw for 20 TDs in a season means you average 1.25 TD/game. I have confidence that Jackson could do that if he started a full season.
Could Cutler have helped? Sure, but the Vikings need a few more starters (OT, WR, CB, QB) and depth all around. And even if the Vikings had offered the same picks and a starting QB, Chicago’s are much more valuable as they are picking earlier and the offered (argueably) a better QB option then what the Vikings could/would have meaning which means the Vikings would have had to give up more in order to outbid the Bears and that just wouldn’t be worth it for a guy that doesn’t project on to the team that well (Cutler was second in the league in pass att/game last year and a wide margin more than the Vikings. 39 att/gm for Cutler to 28 for the Vikings)
Every year in the NFC Norse is a fight for first place. Where they are projected to place at the end of the season, while still 3 weeks before the draft takes place, means nothing.
by vikingfuture8816 on Apr 6, 2009 5:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
good point,
maybe the vikings just didnt have enough to get cutler. As you said, this years bears #1 and #3 picks are better than the vikings. Sage vs Orton (in my opinion) is a wash, but only denver can tell you if they would have even thought about it.
But you talk like the vikings NEED more starters. You dont need another WR, just one that goes with Berrian (what about rice?). Rt, from what I hear, you guys want one bad. you can get a starting RT in the 2nd round, as this years draft is deep with OT’s. CB, is third on your wish list. Everyone wishes they could upgrade three areas a year.
and yes, projection is just about talk because we still have to play the game barring injuries, suspensions, and actual performance. But you are the first to give me a legit reason why the vikings couldnt upgrade their qb situation.
by gl12ox05 on Apr 6, 2009 5:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
want a reason why the Vikings didn't upgrade their QB position?
Childress
Enough Said
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on Apr 6, 2009 6:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
100% agree
get rid of predicatable “childress” and trash “TJ” and this team instantly gets better.
What a wast of a perfectly good football team.
by gl12ox05 on Apr 6, 2009 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think getting rid of Childress would be enough.
I still don’t know why you want to dump TJ this soon into his career.
by Bjorno on Apr 6, 2009 6:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I don't think Jackson is trash
He had 9 TD’s (6%) and only 2 INT’s (1.3%) as well as a 95.4 QB rating. That’s not too horrible.
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on Apr 6, 2009 11:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah...
I didnt mean cut altogether. Just not the starter. Players have sat the bench for years then become quality players later on.
I just meant, for a team built to win now, Jackson is not the guy to qb this team. Maybe to hold the clip board.
by gl12ox05 on Apr 7, 2009 10:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
very true
Ill give you that
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on Apr 7, 2009 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
2007
I know it only says he started 12 games, but that’s because he was hurt, another not-so-great trait in a supposed franchise QB.
19 starts in 2.125 seasons is enough to be considered a primary starter for 2 seasons.
His stats say that he would pass for more like 15 TD in a full season of 16 games. Perhaps your expectation of 20 TD was accounting for the possible lengthening of the season (which surely won’t have players’ union approval after the average NFL team finished with 10 players on IR)?
by KC Viking on Apr 7, 2009 11:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, his stats show that he has improved his TD/game ratio every year. 2006- 2 TDs in 4 games = .5 TDs/game. 2007 – 9 TDs in 12 games= .75 TDs/games. 2008 9 TDs in 9 games= 1 TD/game. Seems he has improved by .25 TD/game each season. If Jackson were to play every game and keep his average going up at the same rate, that is 16 games x 1.25 TDs/game = 20 TDs in 16 games. So it doesn’t seem impossible and I think that, like any QB, if he is able to play every game and develop a good rhythm and timing with the WRs, 20 TDs is well within expectations, even without extra games which never factored into anything (and I agree, unless they give the players a lot more money, there won’t be any 18 game seasons.)
by vikingfuture8816 on Apr 8, 2009 2:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Garbage time
I was only looking at his starts, and here’s another stat: in his 19 starts, TJ has thrown at least 1 INT in 10 of them. And to think that his last 3 starts were against 2 terrible pass defenses and backups!
It’s just not convincing enough to make me excited about the idea of him or Sage being our starter. Granted, it should be more productive than the Frerotte/TJ combo of last year, but probably not enough.
by KC Viking on Apr 8, 2009 10:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jay Cutler threw for at least one INT in 13 of his starts. And he played the 3 of the 5 worst pass Ds, the Jets (29th in pass D) once and Chargers (31st in pass D) and Chiefs (28th in pass D) twice each! In fact, Cutler throws at least 1 INT in every game he has played. Even T-Jack has a better average than that (18 INTs in 25 games) and I am just looking at the stats. I’ll give that Cutler has thrown more passes so has a higher chance of throwing an INT, but if you are only going to focus on the negative and not the whole picture, you’ll never see the finish line.
by vikingfuture8816 on Apr 8, 2009 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cutler throws at least 1 INT in every game he has played.
See, now that is exactly the sort of statement which appears to be true by averages, but is not actually true. Cutler has had 10 starts with zero interceptions in his career, and you had even pointed that out yourself in your first sentence. Cutler is more consistent overall, and has fewer games with 3+ INTs as further proof.
Consistency and bipolar distributions do not show up in averages; therefore, a good-looking average doesn’t necessarily represent what happened most of the time.
by KC Viking on Apr 8, 2009 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even that stat doesn’t show the whole picture. You say Cutler has fewer 3+ INT games than Jackson, but Cutler has 1 3+ INT game and Jackson has 2. Not exactly a telling stat. Cutler, however, has 9 multi INT (2+) games in 37 games (24% of his games played) and Jackson, who has 4 multi INT games in 25 games (16% of his games played). So yeah, Cutler is more consistent… at throwing picks.
You’re right, I did say that Cutler has thrown at least 1 INT every game. When you take his overall play, as in what he has done in every game, he has thrown enough INTs to warrant the qualifier at least. Is he guaranteed to throw an INT every game? No. But he throws enough of them that you can expect him to throw at least one. There is no such thing as a stat that can predict exactly what is going to happen in every game, that is why they don’t play the games on paper. Averages can be used as indicators because it is based on total past performance and not individual pockets of stats. Averages don’t tell you what happens every time (no stat does), but they can tell you what is most likely to happen most of the time.
by vikingfuture8816 on Apr 8, 2009 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dont forget....
about the different offenses these two qbs play in. This isnt a stat, but cutler played in an offense where he had to throw the ball. Remember, he had no running backs last year.
TJ played in a very conservative, run first, keep the reigns on the qb type offense. Meaning the plays where TJ was supposed to throw, most of them were safe high % short yardage pass plays.
That makes TJ’s picks a little worse than in Cutlers one sided air attack.
by gl12ox05 on Apr 8, 2009 5:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very true, they play in different system and like I said in a previous post here, Cutler is put in more situations to throw TDs and picks than Jackson. The point we are debating though is not who throws more picks or is a better QB, but if averages can be good indicators of performance. It has kind of taken a different path from time to time, but we are still hashing it out. Not that I think he would change his mind just because of something I say or vice versa. More of a back and forth of opinions.
by vikingfuture8816 on Apr 8, 2009 9:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
thats my point...
your averages cant be good indicators because when you say 16% of jackson’s games he throws multiple picks, this stat is actually bigger than cutlers 24%. Jackson’s offense is about protecting the football and being very conservative. His int % should be much lower.
My point is that these stats are very interesting but not telling of the true story. knowing everything that we do about these two, including your stats, if you were to start a football team from scratch and the two qbs you had to choose from were tjax or cutler, who would you pick?
by gl12ox05 on Apr 9, 2009 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How is 16% more than 24%? Cutler has thrown 9 multi INT games and Jackson 4. That almost 50% more and that is just multi INT games. Cutler throws INTs at a higher rate than Jackson. An INT is an INT, just because Cutler throws them more often doesn’t mean Jackson’s are worse. And just because Jackson plays in a different offense doesn’t make them worse. Your bias for a QB that throws the ball more is the only thing that makes it worse. Just because Cutler had “no RBs” and plays in a system that requires him to throw more, doesn’t mean he can get careless with the ball or doesn’t mean anything if he throws INTs. There isn’t an offense out there where it is ok to throw INTs, and all of them ask the QB to protect the football.
Who I would pick starting from scratch is irrelevant. That’s not even what this conversation has been about. As you just stated, they play in different systems. If I was to run an offense like the Vikings, I wouldn’t be so high on Cutler or even a QB. I would be looking for lineman and a running back. If I wanted an offense that threw the ball 70% of the time, I would probably lean towards Cutler because he is a better QB than Jackson. No one is arguing that. But when it comes to what the Vikings run, Cutler isn’t a good fit. Outside of his style of play not fitting, his personality does either. Cutler has been in Chicago all of a week and already he is trying to influence personnel decisions by lobbying for the soon to be incarcerated Burress. The guy already thinks he is better than Elway, now he is trying to be Brett Farve. That shit don’t fly in my book.
by vikingfuture8816 on Apr 9, 2009 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
an int is a int...
but when you throw the ball twice as much as tjax, then you are expected to throw twice as many int. Would it be fair to say the deeper plays have a greater chance of a pick than say a 1-5 pass? Lets look at yards per reception by each qb, Cutlers is higher than tjax. The bottom line is cutler had to throw high risk throws more often. Tjax was not required to throw high risk passes. (as often). So an int is and int on a stat sheet, but when you have to throw 40 times vs 20 times then you expect 2 int vs 1 int (what is the nfl avg of int per pass?) and when 15 of those 20 times are passes 1-7 yrds, you shouldnt be expected to average a pick per game. so again when 16% of the games are multi picks, in that scenario, tjax looks worse.
Who I would pick starting from scratch is NOT irrelevant. It tells the true story. You have your stats. Now (again) I ask you a Very simple question. If you had to start a team from scratch and your two choices where cutler or tjax who would you pick? You would pick cutler because he can do more with the ball. Even if you wanted to run something like the vikings offense, you would still pick cutler because he gives you more options. You could still hand off 80% of the time but you would have a little more faith to take more shots down the field with cutler. That is the telling story.
I am not even talking about which qb is best for the vikings, but your point was that the stat averages say tjax is the better qb. But if you were to take stats, what you have actually seen of the two, and add to the equation how they were used, overall you cant deny that last year, cutler was better than tjax.
by gl12ox05 on Apr 9, 2009 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Technically, you can write off the whole arguement that Cutler was better than Jackson since Jackson didn’t play an entire season, and so we didn’t get to see what Jackson’s stats would be in 16 games. But 9 TDs to 2 Ints in 5 games is pretty good.
by Frost on Apr 9, 2009 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess thats another thing...
about stats.
If you were to start a blank team tomorrow and your choices of qb were between cutler and jackson, who would it be?
you can use all the stats you want. Even with Jackson’s 9 td to 2int, I am guessing most people go with cutler.
by gl12ox05 on Apr 9, 2009 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
cutler can do all the handoffs and throw the 1-7 yard passes 17 times a game. But he can do more.
Tjax cant throw the ball 39 times a game. If he did, he wouldnt complete 62% of them, or his picks would be higher than 18. if he did, his numbers wouldnt be as good as cutlers.
by gl12ox05 on Apr 9, 2009 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never, ever said T-Jack was a better QB. I would love it if you could find that quote and not put words in my mouth. All I said was that Jackson throws INTs less often. Where does that say he his better than anyone? Cutler throws more TDs, is he better than McNabb or Roethlisberger ?
And who you pick doesn’t tell any true story other than which QB you like (aka your bias opinion). I wouldn’t pick either Cutler or Jackson if I could chose who I want at QB. Its irrelevant because nobody is making there own team, you got to live with who is on the roster. Go play Madden if you want to make your own team. And I don’t care how many times you throw it, you are not expected to throw more INTs if you throw it more. Just look at Manning. Does any throw more than him? He doesn’t give up INTs like Cutler does. Yeah it happens, some times a ball is tipped, but QBs still shouldn’t throw a lot of INTs.
by vikingfuture8816 on Apr 9, 2009 8:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Im just responding to your....
statement of “Averages don’t tell you what happens every time (no stat does), but they can tell you what is most likely to happen most of the time.”
What I am saying is, you put cutler in minnesota’s offense and his stats would “probably” be at least the same as or better than TJ. You put TJ in Denver’s offense and TJ’s numbers are no where close to what Cutlers were. Yet your stats say TJ wouldnt throw the 18 picks that Cutler did on 39 passer per game. So I am not saying Cutler is better, im just saying your stats arent an accurate statement of what most likely will happen. Stats dont take into account factors like the type of offenses ran or number of passes thrown.
Going back to my question to you, does tell a huge story. And again, its just between cutler and TJ. Not none of the above or cutler vs Mcnabb. it tells the story because (and i dont play madden) you would pick cutler. You would pick him because based on all the stats, and from what you have seen, he gives you more of an advantage and upside of beating the other team from the ab position.
And yes, if someone throws the ball more, like 39 times a game vs 17 times, you would expect him to throw more picks. You would also expect cutler to have a few more picks because his pass per completion is higher than TJ. That means he is throwing a lot more riskier passes than TJ.
Lastly, Manning does throw the just as many if not more than Cutler. Because he doesnt throw as many picks than cutler is what makes Manning better and one of the best qbs in the game. Without seeing the stats, I would say Manning and Cutler throw about the same # of passes per game. I would also say they throw relatively the same # of risky passes. So, then their stats would be relevant in comparing the two.
But its good you bring up manning. lets say we are talking manning instead of cutler. Manning threw 12 picks last year. An avg of .75 per game. You put him in the vikings conservative off and he probably doesnt throw 12 picks. You put TJ in indys off where he throws an avg of 35 passes and TJ’s picks per game goes up. Again, you would expect the number of picks to go up and down because of the number of passes thrown and the number of risky passing plays attempted. This is not shown in your stats.
by gl12ox05 on Apr 10, 2009 10:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but...
Didn’t Gus get us to the playoffs last year, and wasn’t it T-Jack that puked all over himself in giving that game to Philly????
We must be thinking of two different seasons… LOL
by stilpony on Apr 6, 2009 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gus didn't do shit but throw INT's
Jackson brought us back against the LIONS, since gus was determined to lose that game. Then he played against the Cardinals and had 4 TD’s. the Next week, he put up over 300 all purpose yards in a losing effort. The next week, he beat the Giants in what was pretty much a playoff game. Then he played in his first playoff game against the 3rd best D in the league. He finished the season with 9TD’s and 2 INT’s. Not too bad if you ask me.
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on Apr 6, 2009 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
Gus brought us back from that 0-2 start that T-Jax put us in, losing 2 games that we should have easily had in the bag, had we only been able to score more than 1 fricken TD! In the GB game, he went 1-1 (TD/Int) and couldnt get us close enough to allow Longwell to kick more than one field goal. He followed that up without a TD vs a weak Indianapolis team (at that time), and we lost the game despite kicking 5 Field Goals. TD would have helped there.
Now, having said that, after Gus got us right back into playoff contention, then got hurt at the end of the season, T-Jax came in and did a great job. He did what we expected from a QB, posting the numbers above. However, against the Giants, he started to slip a bit during the game, despite throwing for 239 yards, you could see him starting to go back to some of his bad habits while in the pocket. This scared me, but I figured it was a tough game. Then against the Eagles, he fell apart. Can he fix this, by getting rid of his jitters? Perhaps. But confidence is a huge part of the game.
We will see what Tarvaris has for his future. As for now, I would have to go with a bleak future for him. But whether he or Sage wins the job, I sure hope one of them comes through big.
cough Pat White cough
by Lofoten on Apr 6, 2009 5:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jackson did throw a TD in that Indy game. Only problem was Shiancoe couldn’t hold onto it. And IMO, the biggest reason the Vikings lost week 1 was because of special teams. I really don’t think T-Jack was the biggest reason why the Vikings lost those games, but Chilly felt the need to save face, so he threw Gus in there. Sure Gus played alright for his first couple of games, but overall, he was 2nd in the league in INTs (I think) and the Vikings didn’t throw that much. Yet Jackson only had 2 INTs.
Here are the stats from last year.
Completion %:
Frerotte: 59.1
Jackson: 59.1 This is a wash
Touchdowns/ TD%:
Frerotte: 12 / 4%
Jackson: 9 / 6% Jackson is the winner on this one
Interceptions/ INT :
Frerotte: 15 / 5
Jackson: 2 / 1.3% Jackson is the winner on this one as well
Yards Per Attempt:
Frerotte: 7.2 Technically, Frerotte is the winner here
Jackson: 7.1
Yards Per Game:
Frerotte: 192.1 Close, but Gus get’s the nod
Jackson: 188.6
QB Rating:
Frerotte: 73.7
Jackson: 95.4 Clear cut winner
After looking at these stats, its easy to see Jackson was Minnesota’s best QB last year
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on Apr 6, 2009 6:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good stats
I agree that the numbers for the year look good, however, watching the games told me a different story.
Tarvaris looked really bad to start off the year. Gus looked great in relief. However, as the season wore on, Gus went from doing great to slipping into throwing INTs. No idea if this was all him, or from Chilly trying to change his rules of engagement. When he got hurt, Tarvaris came in and looked like a hot knife in butter for a couple games, before slipping as well.
I am not sure Tarvaris would have held true through the course of the year. If he wins the job and puts in a solid year, then he will gain my approval and backing (for whatever that counts). But from what I have seen thus far in two years, I am far from convinced that he is up to NFL standards for being able to lead a playoff team through the post-season.
by Lofoten on Apr 6, 2009 8:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Age
I think you’re on the money with that, Gus is an older guy and as the season progressed, he just wore down. I think it took a heavy toll on him and at the end he needed a few weeks break. Chilly should have given Gus a shot in the 4th Q of the Philly game.
T-Jack’s stats and rating look really good but he didn’t have as many games on the board to get a fair assessment out of. Any QB can step out and play a handful of really good games, but can they sustain it over the long run of the season? Was it situational, or was it really par? I don’t put a lot of faith in a high rating for a player that only played less than 6 games in a season.
by DCPurple on Apr 7, 2009 8:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
However
Frerotte 8-3 as a starter
Jackson 2-4 as a starter
by VikesMT on Apr 7, 2009 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really. Jackson played deftly and won for us the last game in which Frerotte played (miserably, mind you). This was against Detroit, when Frerotte was 7/10 with 0 touchdowns and 2 interceptions (at that time tying him with Brett Favre for most interceptions in the NFL, despite the fact that he hadn’t played the first two games of the season). Tarvaris then went on to play extremely well in the last two regular season games. So, in the regular season, despite himself, Frerotte was 7-3, while Jackson was 3-3.
by Anthony Carter on Apr 7, 2009 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How many of those games did Frerotte win single handedly? How many did he lose single handedly? If I was a betting man, I would put my money on the latter.
Now in Tarvaris’ first two games, he did not play as good as he did the second half of the season, but he still put us in position to win those games. In the Green Bay game, I think it was more the special teams that lost us that game. In the Indy game, Shiancoe dropped a sure TD pass. And if our D could’ve stopped them in the last few minutes, we still would’ve won that game.
In that Detroit game, T_Jack brought us back from the jaws of defeat. In that Arizona game, he single handedly won that game for us, throwing 4 TD passes! In the Atlanta game, he played very well, but the whole team (not just AD) came down with some disease where they couldn’t hold onto the ball. The Giants game he played so so, but we won. 1st half of the Eagles game, he played very well. Second half, not so much.
Overall, T-Jack played pretty well IMO. I’m actually excited to see what he can do this year with some serious competition in training camp
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on Apr 7, 2009 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m basically of the same opinion. After some brief fury after the season ended, I decided that, with the lack of available talent available, I was okay with the Vikings staying with Rosencoptor and Tjack.
I too am looking forward to seeing lots of progress in Tjack’s development. At least, I better see lots of progress.
In AP I trust
by FarvaForTheVikings on Apr 7, 2009 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m basically of the same mind, too. I probably lean toward feeling he has the tools and am eager to see them honed, but couldn’t agree more that this is the year we can rightly expect progress to be made. I also think that it’s important to remember that this team could be a SuperBowl team without a league all star at quarterback. In which case, I’m happy we didn’t break the bank over Cutler, who becomes a kind of all or none guy. Steady play at quarterback, with moments of surprise downfield, are all we need.
by Anthony Carter on Apr 7, 2009 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He gets a pass for those two games in my book.
He should not have even been on the field for those games considering the shape of his son.
I would like to see you perform at acceptable levels at YOUR job while your 2 year old son is getting a pacemaker installed and your wife has Lupus.
by Bjorno on Apr 6, 2009 6:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair Enough
Then perhaps T-Jack should retire from the NFL so that he can go sit by his wife and baby’s side, 24/7.
I can live with that. If he can’t do his job because he’s that distracted, then he needs to go and focus on what’s on his mind. That would be best for him, and best for the Vikings as well.
by DCPurple on Apr 7, 2009 8:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is a pretty heartless reply... no offense.
The point of it was that he should not even been put in the position to play those two game in the first place.
Childress knew what was going on in Tjacks life at the time, and still decided to put him under center in what was possibly the most important part of his career.
At that time, yes he should have been with his son while the pacemaker was being installed, getting infected, then replaced with a new pacemaker. But that doesn’t mean he needs to retire.
A break would have sufficed, he only needed enough time to get through the operations and infection.
It is hard to be confident and concentrate on the field if you are constantly worrying about your son dying while you are out playing football.
I think props should be given to Tjack for trying.
by Bjorno on Apr 7, 2009 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone's Best Interest
I know we want the Vikings to win football games, but to want to put the man on the field and have him play, when his head is no way in shape for the game, is not only bad management, it’s heartless to T-Jack. If the issues with his family are a long-time, on-going thing, and it’s so distracting that he can’t focus on playing a 3 hour game once a week, then he shouldn’t be on the field, no matter how good he is. If that’s really the case, then Childress & Co should sit T-Jack down and have a serious career discussion with the man, and come to a decision that’s in his best interest. Not just in the best interest of the sport.
by DCPurple on Apr 8, 2009 6:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Missing the point.
TJ Jr health problems are no longer a major concern, neither are his wife’s. The issues are under control.
It is not like I am saying that Tjack should be given a break for all the bad throws he has made because his son has a pacemaker and his wife has Lupus.
I am saying that while his son was undergoing the procedures, Tarvaris should not have been starting. He should have been benched those two games and allowed time to be with his son.
Childress wouldn’t bench him because he had been talking TJack up all spring and summer. Childress’ credibility would have taken a huge hit had he not started Jackson those two games.
Though, his credibility took an even bigger hit when he punted on 4th and 18 on his own 28 yard line, down by two scores with 2:34 seconds on the clock and no time outs and gave the excuse “I thought we’d get the ball back”.
by Bjorno on Apr 8, 2009 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Coaching
This is the point; it’s the coach’s job to know his players and know what they’re going through, whether or not they’re up to being able to play.
If T-Jack couldn’t focus on the game because he was worried about his family, then he shouldn’t be in the game. Whether that’s for the long run, or just a couple games, that’s how it is. I’m not saying he should or shouldn’t be able to handle it; I’m saying the coach should know what’s up and make the right choice for everyone.
by DCPurple on Apr 9, 2009 6:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then we are in complete agreement.
Good stuff.
by Bjorno on Apr 9, 2009 11:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Playing through tough times
Favre’s wife had cancer, his dad died…and he played well through those times, as I recall. I’ll bet there was always something to worry about for athletes whose children had autism or cystic fibrosis or whatever else.
This sort of thing happens. I’ve seen countless NFL and MLB players listed as being on bereavement leave, not so different from those at the office. If one is dealing with too much to be effective, then taking some sort of leave is the professional thing to do.
He does not get props just for trying because that is not good enough at the NFL. Trying has no accountability or objective attached. He should either play to win and execute the game plan well enough to give the team a real chance to win or take leave. Most coaches will make up little injuries or exaggerate small real ones for that sort of thing.
None of you think that Troy Williamson had a bad 2007 just because he was distracted and ended up in a fight with Childress about whether he spent too much time with his grandmother, do you?
by KC Viking on Apr 8, 2009 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
True
But you are missing the point that Tarvaris was at a critical juncture in his development as a QB.
Favre was already 13 years into his career when those issues arose, and it is not like he was sitting there worrying about whether his dad was going to die while he was on the field.
Being motivated to honor your father after his death, and worrying about your son dying are two completely different things.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
by Bjorno on Apr 8, 2009 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lewis Kelly, then
As I’d said, there are many examples. I was not comparing TJ to Favre (that would be laughable) so much as professionalism.
by KC Viking on Apr 8, 2009 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again...
Comparing apples to oranges.
Lewis Kelly is a Guard, not a QB and his pregnant wife passed away. The role of a QB is ten-fold more complicated than that of a Guard. No offense to any offensive linemen out there.
Plus, we are not talking about a person who is grieving the loss of a loved one.
We are talking about a guy who didn’t know whether his son would be alive when he walked off that field. That is a bit different.
I am not disagreeing that there are some personal issues that a professional QB should be able to play through. But that is not one of them.
He should not have started those two games, and I maintain that he gets a pass for those two games in my book.
by Bjorno on Apr 8, 2009 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I will agree
that TJax, nor any other player, should have to play during a life-threatening situation in their immediate family. Nothing is more important than your wife or child. He should have been given the time to take care of that, then come back to whatever the situation is. If Frerotte had done great starting the games he would have missed, and coach wanted to stay with the hot hand, then so be it. Being with family during those times trumps anything!
by Lofoten on Apr 8, 2009 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is no disagreement
…that in a life-threatening situation, he should not have been asked to play. I’m also saying that additionally, he should not have tried to play through that.
Was Chilly on one of his power trips again? If TJ can’t stick up for himself and his family and tell Chilly how he needs it to be when his son is in a life-threatening situation, then what? TJ should have let Chilly be the prick coach who disapproves of players spending time with critically ill family members for the second season in a row (and eventually fall out of favor with management)…either way, it would have been a plus for the fans and the team.
Lewis Kelly really lost his wife and played LT after returning from bereavement while McKinnie was out…big shoes to fill for almost anyone anyway.
by KC Viking on Apr 8, 2009 7:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Props to Kelly...
But Childress is a heartless prick.
Actually, I don’t know that for sure but it is fun to say.
by Bjorno on Apr 8, 2009 10:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"he beat the Giants in what was pretty much a playoff game"
How many reserves did the Eagles play against the Vikings in the playoffs?
Don’t call TJ Captain Comeback just because he led a scoring drive vs. the first 0-16 team ever.
by KC Viking on Apr 7, 2009 11:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
At least he didn’t throw 2 ints to them.
Frerotte went 8 – 3. Jackson’s better than Frerotte. Who knows how well he’ll do next season.
by Frost on Apr 8, 2009 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
File under: the sky is blue
Everyone with a brain knew that TJ was better than Frerotte, but perhaps neither of them had any business starting an NFL game since 2007 (or earlier).
by KC Viking on Apr 8, 2009 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Frost makes good points
First of all, Sage was never brought into any team and given the helm of the offense. He now has a chance to share reps with T-Jax as the possible #1. That will be a biggie for him. Before it was, “oops, someones down. Bring in Sage and cross your fingers” Developing a report with hith the starting team may be a big help..
Second and again I say, Bravo T-Jax for handling all the QB rumors like a man. (Unlike Cutler). I too was impress as I got to come home and see him play a very good game against the Falcons. He was making short passes, moving the team downfield, and if you want to tlk Mike Vick, T-Jax ran like a deer when he saw an opening. As long as they don’t handcuff his talent and tell him to never run. OK, he falls short in his, (key words) first playoff game. Am i sold on him?-No. Giving up on him?-No. handing him the starting job?-No.
I’ll say this. If Sage beats him out that means Sage is showing something. It also means we still have a reliable backup QB who is young and athletic.
by CitrusFLViking on Apr 6, 2009 7:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Great evaluation. I think PurplePeopleEaters09 and I both agree on this summary.
by Lofoten on Apr 6, 2009 8:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
yep Lofoten, I definitely agree. Although I would like to add that Sage was brought in to Miami a few years ago to compete for the starting gig, and got beaten out by Frerotte. But I’m sure we all hope he has learned about his mistakes since then and is better:)
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on Apr 6, 2009 11:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jackson is a tough one.
We all know he has the physical skills needed to be a top-tier QB.
We also know that there is much more to that position than physical skills alone.
That said, closing the book on a QB this early in his career is a bad idea. Especially when said QB has been coached by the “QB Guru/Village Idiot” that is Brad Childress.
I know, and I am sure the rest of the team knows, that nobody can say for sure whether Tjack will figure it out this year if ever. Knowing that, it would be foolish not to bring in a veteran west-coast QB that can fill the void for a few years if need be.
Remember, we are not asking Tjack to be John Elway. He doesn’t need to throw the ball 35 times a game for us to win football games. 10-15 completions for 150-200 yards, a few third down rushes for a first down and a TD is all he needs to provide us in order for the team to be a contender in most games, and he has already shown that he can provide those numbers.
Jackson would benefit the most if we opened up our playbook a bit. When he is pressured, he has a habit of trying to force the ball. That is what Quarterbacks do, it’s not just Jackson. You can attribute much of the Giants SB win over the Pats to the amount of pressure they got on Tom Brady.
Predictable playcalling prevents the offense from using schemes to protect the QB and they have to rely on skill alone. As mentioned before, there is more to this game than physical skill.
ANYONE who says that Jackson can never be a good QB obviously does not understand the mental aspect of the game, nor the pressures that come with being an NFL QB. He has shown improvement over the years, and people are way to quick to point to the Eagles game and say “OMG HE THREW ONE INT TO ONE OF THE BEST PASS DEFENSES IN THE LEAGUE, THAT MEANS HE SUCKS, LOLZ!!!!”.
I for one was not happy with the way he played in the second half of that game, but did we really think JACKSON was going to get us back into that game? Anyone with half a brain knows that Jackson is not the star player on our team, he is a role player. Childress should not have tried to pass his way back into the game against the Eagles pass defense (#3 in the league). We have the best running back, arguably the best backup running back, probably the best blocking TE (Jimmy) and one of the best O-lines.
Why would we try to force the pass? All it takes is AP breaking one long run and we are back in the game.
The main point of this post is that Childress has more to do with bad QB performances than Tjack himself does. It would be ridiculous to close the book on TJack this early, just as it is ridiculous for us to not pursue a viable veteran alternative should Jackson not be able to take the next step.
Sage was a good pickup, with the better Completion % that is needed for a West Coast offense, but I am not sold that he can be any better than Tjack. He might complete more passes, but he also will probably get injured trying a double-backflip with a half twist into the endzone on a QB sneak.
by Bjorno on Apr 6, 2009 11:47 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
The Vikings don’t need a guy that throws 600 times a year and that is not how the team is built. They need to use this draft to reinforce their strengths (an OT) and get a play maker to help take attention away from our current offensive play makers (Berrian/Peterson) and if possible help out in the KR/PR aspects of the Vikings game (BTW check out Gonzo’s Kluwe article to see how much the special teams breakdowns affected the win-loss record this past year). Fill some depth holes on defense and guys that can play special teams, and the Vikings have the flexibility to move around in the first round next year if they want to get one of the top QBs (or any top player for that matter, but if I had to guess what the Vikings might move up for, it would be QB). IMO, Colt McCoy is the best fit for the Vikings at this point. He completes a high % of his passes (70% over 3 years so far), he is more mobile, and threw on the run a lot in his career which all seems to be what the Vikings do with their QBs in their run based offense.
by vikingfuture8816 on Apr 6, 2009 3:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
plus 2
Get that garbage bread and butter play calling book and throw it in the trash. As I responded to Manimal, the kid played great against Atlanta and pretty weel against NY. When we mix up the book, we look great. Then all of the sudden it looks like the 2nd half of a Gopher basketball game. “What happened to the team that was tearing it up the 1st half?” I often would think why after a good push down the field with a variety of plays do we have like a couple 3 and outs in a row with a basic run, run, pass then kick. Rotating the backfield, playng Chester and Adrian together more. A draw or screen on 2nd down. Counter runs. Or fake the counter and throw short the opposite way to the TE or a quick slanting reciever.
Point is, if T-Jax is going to be the guy, let him play to his athletic ability. I always felt Tice blew it when he tried to make Culpepper a pure pocket QB, Prior to that the guy would run over people if he didn’t have a target. I really felt that was his downfall. You think if we had Vick we would ask him to just hand the ball off or stand there and take the sack?
If you go with T-Jax make your play book to fit him.
by CitrusFLViking on Apr 6, 2009 8:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
what made me upset was when I was watching the Giants game and Eagles game last year, I didn’t see Tarvaris take off and run like he should. IMO, T-Jack should scramble at least 5 times a game. It will just add another dimension to the offense, and help make the defense more honest.
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on Apr 6, 2009 11:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's no Culpepper
I remember that, and it turned out well. Tice and C-pep set a goal for interception-free football, and he didn’t throw any in the entire preseason…and went several games in the regular season without throwing one, too. And he still ran when that was the best option (usually).
TJ is not Daunte, though. Daunte was a remarkably accurate passer at UCF (and in the NFL, too) while TJ completed about 57% of his passes vs. NCAA Div I-AA defenses. Daunte could put a hurt on whomever tried to tackle him. Daunte did not lock down onto one receiver from the minute he took the snap.
Except for one thing: TJ fumbles almost as often as Culpepper.
by KC Viking on Apr 8, 2009 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Daunte also had
Scott Linehan to guide him play by play. Right after Linehan left, Duante had to think for himself, and crashed. A few games later, his Viking’s career ended with a broken leg. I was sorely disappointed, because I talked about how our offense would be just fine without Moss. Burleson and company would hold the fort down. Little did I know that Daunte needed Jiminy Cricket on his shoulder.
by Lofoten on Apr 8, 2009 4:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Scott Linehan
That most excellent head coach for the cellar-dwelling Rams?
Daunte wasn’t the only impact player to be injured that year, and Steve Loney and Tice and Brad Johnson led the team to a 7-2 record in the last nine games despite all of that. I think that raises a legitimate question of how good Linehan ever was given the massive talent he had to work with.
I will always remember that ATROCIOUS game vs. Cinci no matter how hard I try not to think about it ever again.
by KC Viking on Apr 8, 2009 7:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dont think
Linehan did great as the Rams HEAD COACH. However, he was a fantastic offensive coordinator. Some people have limits, and it seems that Linehan’s limit was Offensive Coach and no higher.
by Lofoten on Apr 9, 2009 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Linehan
…had a good run as the Vikings’ OC, and maybe he really deserves most of the credit for the Culpepper-to-Moss years, but I’m just saying it’s really hard to tell whether it was him or the great talent he had to work with then.
I can definitely agree with you or anyone that the talent he had always seemed to develop and even surprise people. So he couldn’t have been holding anyone back while trying to pigeonhole everyone into a systematic role (as I believe Chilly and Bevell do), but I still think most OCs would have had productive and praiseworthy years with that same talent.
by KC Viking on Apr 9, 2009 5:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
“pigeonhole everyone into a systematic role”
Truer words have never been spoken.
I don’t know how many times talk came up about opening up the Freaking playbook until Chilly finally got it. It frustrates me as much as the memory of Denny Green shutting down our offense after halftime against the Falcons in the ’98 NFC Championship game, when we were leading 17-0. Hey, we did great, now lets play safe defense for a whole entire half. Bah, that was our year to beat the hapless Broncos and win our first Superbowl. 15-1 record….so delicious.
drifts off into memories of Randall Cunningham throwing for 3700+ yards, Moss catching 17 TDs in his rookie year, Cris Carter signaling another first down, Gar Anderson having a perfect 35/35 FGs, Robert Smith, John Randle and Randall McDaniel dressed in purple and gold…..drafting Matt Birk
by Lofoten on Apr 9, 2009 6:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, yes
Those were good times, even though they didn’t win or get to the big one.
I could be wrong about this, but was Linehan the one who had never even played football? If not, he was CRAZY for leaving the booth and try to win a new group of players’ respect as a head coach.
by KC Viking on Apr 9, 2009 7:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ahhh memories...
I am glad I got Madden NFL ’96 for Christmas. Got me into football with enough time to become a Vikes fan before the big season.
by Bjorno on Apr 9, 2009 7:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the problem isn’t TJack, it’s the play calling. They will not let him play outside of the pocket, they force him to stay there and makes him screw up. I do not think that he is all that great, but he could be a solid starting quarterback if they just let him do what he does. They do not give him any options, so it forces him to force stupid passes. Jackson has great legs, he can run great if the coaching staff will let him change plays (like a lot of quarterbacks do) we could really see what he is capable of. I am glad that this is Childress’ last year, I think we need to get rid of him and Bevel and get a decent head coach and offensive coordinator. I think Frazier would be a great head coach.
by Lachrist on Apr 6, 2009 12:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I really don’t see the bad that TJack has done except for the last game last season but not all first time qb’s in the play offs going up against a top defense with sub par wr’s and a bone head coach can produce the way other qb’s can. You can’t really blame the first game on Tarvaris you have to blame that one on the special teams for letting the Packers get that touchdown. and the 2nd game against the colts has to be placed on the defence and shiancoe dropping that touch down pass. In my eyes Tarvaris only lost one game even though it was the most important. The guy has shown some flashes like when he threw 4 td’s and brought us back from almost losing to the defeated lions.
I don’t even see how people would want to start Sage over Tarvaris. Tarvaris has better chemistry with the players, knows the playbook better, quicker on his feet and can make plays happen, has a hell of an arm, but he just has to work a little harder on bein a little more accurate. I still think the 9 td’s and 2 int’s beats 6 td’s and 10 int’s even with two pro bowls recievers.
by vikesfan4lyf on Apr 6, 2009 3:41 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Its the completion % from Rosenfels that has people drooling. At least, that’s what I’m interested in. Whoever completes more passes to the recievers will be better for the team than the guy that doesn’t.
by Frost on Apr 6, 2009 3:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That and...
To be successful in a west-coast style offense, you need a high completion percentage. That is the best part of Sage.
The only question I have is: “Does a high completion % help much when your team is constantly playing a prevent offense?”
by Bjorno on Apr 6, 2009 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
T-Jack Needs to Study Photos of the Defence While on the Sidelines
How many times did you see T-Jack on the sidelines, cap on backwards, joking with other players when he should have been studying photos of what the defence was doing? Gus and Booty did it all the time even when they weren’t playing. T-Jack has all the physical skills. I think if he focuses on really learning to read defences he’ll be fine. Give him a chance this year to see how he does competing with Sage.
by canadianvikesfansince68 on Apr 6, 2009 7:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Good point.
Though, usually when they show Jackson on the sidelines joking, it is after a TD. He didn’t throw a lot of picks last year.
The reason you see Gus and Booty studying photos is because :
A. That is what backup QB’s do, they study the photos and discuss options with the OC and starter.
B. Whenever they showed Gus on the sidelines, it was usually after a pick. ;)
From what I have heard from other players, Tjack spends more time studying than we give him credit for. Often times he is sitting in on meetings with the Defensive Secondary and Offensive Line.
But that is not to say that he wouldn’t benefit from more photo study.
by Bjorno on Apr 7, 2009 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you need....
to study photos on how to spell “D-E-F-E-N-S-E.”
by gl12ox05 on Apr 9, 2009 6:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are more people to blame...
For the people calling for Childress to be fired, what about the receivers coach? Aundrae Allison and Sidney Rice both seem to be developing far too slowly. I don’t recall much separation from the wideouts last year, most passes being to Berrian when a corner tripped or to Shiancoe as a check down receiver.
I like the way Jackson comes across in interviews (and when Chad Brainless benched him for Frerotte saying he was “playing not to lose” I couldn’t help but recall the line from Friday Night Lights that “Style filters down”) but with the other issues with the Vikes passing game (play calling, separation, RHS of O-line) I don’t know if he’ll ever look like a star QB. Conversely, with those issues, I don’t think any QB would post good numbers for us.
As a thought, is there an easy way to find out how many times we used 3/4 receiver sets last year? a mark against T-Jack is he locked on to his primary receiver too often, but I can barely recall a game where he had more than 2 options on most plays.
by ViolentSilence on Apr 7, 2009 1:06 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Play Calling
A WCO-style offense is not to blame for a QB not posting excellent numbers and yardage. Chilly said his “KAO” is a version of the WCO, and the Vikings ran the WCO 20 years before it had that name! Tarkenton was the epitome of a “WCO” QB and while he could air it out from time to time to keep the other side honest, he was best known for nickle and dime passes that frustrated the hell out of the opposition because they really couldn’t stop the Vikes from marching, one little piece at a time, all the way down the field. Tarkenton had excellent numbers that still hold up pretty well in the rankings.
People keep saying that the Vikings are a “run-first” offense, which makes no sense if it’s also supposed to be a WCO-style offensive scheme, which is “pass-first”. And maybe that’s the beginning of the confusion and why things are so half-assed on the play-calling side; Chilly doesn’t quite know what he’s talking about or doing. With all the talent we have on offense, even without a star-power QB, the Vikes should be pretty formidable… but they aren’t showing it. Are they really so lacking that they depend on the defense to hold the other side down to numbers the offense can overcome? Or is the playcalling designed to play to the other team’s ability and score? In other words, is the playcalling responsible for holding the team back? Maybe it’s a bit of both, but I’d weight the problem more on the playcalling itself.
by DCPurple on Apr 8, 2009 6:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Childress relies on his player's talents in order to win...
Good coaches do not keep the same game plan when a game-changer such as Peterson falls into their laps.
They adjust, and scheme, in order to take advantage of the playmakers abilities.
Do we really want Peterson to be a “between the tackles” kind of runner? Or would he be better served with some sweep, pitch and screen plays? What about play action?
I mean seriously, 90% of the touches Peterson gets seem to be designed to run up the middle, and AP has to bounce them to the outside just to get yardage.
And what is with this 85% Peterson 15% Taylor Bullhockey? 60/40 would be an ideal mixture.
What head coach wouldn’t put them both on the field at the same time?
Who runs two designed bootlegs in a row within the 10 yard line against a defensive line as quick as the Indianapolis Colts?
Who tries to force a scrambling QB to sit in the pocket? If Childress wanted a Pocket Passer he should have drafted a 6’4"+ QB who doesn’t have the ability to break a 40 yard run.
Who decides one day to implement a Zone Blocking Scheme with offensive linemen that are not quick enough?
Who throws their punter under the bus when there were 10 other people on the field that couldn’t figure out how to contain Reggie Bush?
Who decides to pass the ball on third and 20 while the half is almost over, allowing the other team to score a quick one before halftime? Twice?
Who shows absolutely no urgency when down by 2 scores late in the game?
Who uses timeouts in the third quarter on 1st and ten when you are down by 2 scores and the play clock is winding down? Does he not think we will need those time outs later? Take the 5 yard penalty.
I could go on and on…
But it seems like the general consensus is that Childress has his thumb up his rear and likes to chew his fingernails afterwards.
Icky.
by Bjorno on Apr 8, 2009 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good Memories
I’d like to have a dollar for every time Fran did his little roll to the right from behind center and toss a short to pass to a receiver (more often than not, Chuck Foreman) who would turn it into a big gain. You’re right, they were frustrating to the opposition…
by purplegrey on Apr 9, 2009 9:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You forgot;
Who let the 2009 FA slip through his fingers without picking up a single high-end player to fill one of the Vikings demonstrable needs?
Who let not one, but two franchise-quality QBs (Cutler and Pennington) slip through his fingers while he continued to dote on his project-QB who’s progress has been ify at best lately?
I’ll give him a half-pass on the punter issue; Kluwe couldn’t punt the ball the way he was instructed to punt it. Showing that anger and frustration in public was a mistake, but Kluwe needed a kick in the ass and got it.
by DCPurple on Apr 9, 2009 7:02 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Trust me, if we got Pennington, people would be yammering for him to be benched. He managed to throw 4 interceptions in his first round one and done appearance.
by Frost on Apr 9, 2009 8:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re probably right. I try to look at a player’s overall performance through the year, not just a single game that could be up or down, but a lot of folks ‘live in the moment’. I was surprised that no one was calling for Warner’s head when his Super Bowl interception became a pathetic 99-yard lineman-rumble across the field for a score that made the game-winning difference for the Steelers. Big Ben throws his share of goobers too. The difference is that those teams went to the Super Bowl, and that earns a lot of forgiveness for other mistakes, especially if they win it.
by DCPurple on Apr 10, 2009 6:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, to his credit, Warner did make up for it. He eventually got his team the lead late in the game and would have taken home the trophy, if not for the famed TD catch. Personally, I blame the coach at least halfway for it. There was only something like 20 seconds left, he got greedy. I thought they’d either try to run it in or kick the FG. Oh, what could have been.
by Frost on Apr 10, 2009 9:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eh, I viewed that as more of an excuse on Childress' part.
I just find it hard to believe that Kluwe was not capable of punting the ball out of bounds, three times.
We are talking about a guy who can put the ball in the corner of the field, within the 10 yard line, almost 70% of the time when he is in range; and we are supposed to believe that it was Kluwe that failed?
It seemed more to me like one of those stubborn Childress moments where he simply would not do what is normal for a certain situation, and it backfired. I can see it being one of those “prove a point” moments where he was trying to show that our special teams did not suck, when in reality they did.
But then again, that is mainly because of how much I dislike Childress as a head coach. I have seen him do too many stupid things to believe that it is Kluwe’s fault.
by Bjorno on Apr 9, 2009 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can see it being something more like....
Childress: “Chris, I want you to punt the ball to him. We are going to show these Saint’s our Kick-Ass special teams”.
Kluwe: “Ok boss, when I am done can I play Guitar Hero in the locker room?”
Childress: “Yes, but only If I get to play the Metallica songs”
Kluwe: “Sure, I hate Metallica, they are douchebags.”
Punt, return, TD.
Childress: “oops! Oh well, we’ll get ’em next punt”
4th and 12
Childress: “Ok Chris, kick it to him again”
Kluwe: “Are you sure?”
Childress: “Don’t question me, I am the QB guru!”
Kluwe: “But….”
Childress: “Do it!”
Punt, Return, great field position
Childress: “Hmmmm… Ok, next time I want you to tackle him Chris.”
Kluwe: “Me?”
Childress: “Yea you, I have this play all designed out so that the rest of the team will funnel him right to you, it’s the perfect plan. EEEEEEH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!”
Kluwe: “You’re the boss.”
I’ll bet Childress has a good evil laugh.
by Bjorno on Apr 9, 2009 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
I can see it going just like that! Lmao
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on Apr 9, 2009 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hang 'Em High
Well, we can believe that Kluwe can’t get the hang-time to give 10 other Vikings a chance to run full-tilt down the field, game after game. Yes, the rest of the team is just too slow, Kluewe’s punts can’t possibly be to blame because Childress got mad at him. It’s everyone else fault, yes indeed.
by DCPurple on Apr 10, 2009 7:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
